• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Why A Fringe Idea About The Supreme Court Is Taking Over The Left - "Fighting Dirty"

Axulus

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
4,686
Location
Hallandale, FL
Basic Beliefs
Right leaning skeptic
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s stonewalling of President Obama’s court nominee, Merrick Garland, was the beginning of a drama that spurred Democrats’ latest disillusionment with the Supreme Court. President Trump’s appointment of two young — well, more like “young” — conservative judges, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, seems to have unleashed an urgent strain of thought in some liberal circles: The court is broken and it needs fixing.

The solution? For some, it’s court-packing.

You’ve likely heard of the concept in history books, referring to a time back in the 1930s when President Franklin Roosevelt was fed up with the Supreme Court’s continual rejection of some elements of his New Deal plan. To get around the impasse, he proposed the addition of up to six new justices to the court in an effort to shift the ideological balance to the more liberal end of the spectrum.

Roosevelt failed to pack the highest court, but his novel little idea has attracted renewed interest in the Trump era. Political scientist David Faris wrote a book, published this spring, called “It’s Time To Fight Dirty,” a kind of highbrow manual for ratfucking one’s way to institutional change. Faris told me the idea for the book came in the wake of the 2016 election, when he was filled with rage. “The whole idea was born out of bleakness,” he said. “It unleashed some creativity.”

The book is full of strategies Democrats could use to regain power, like making Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico states and expanding membership in the House of Representatives (a topic recently taken up by the editorial board of The New York Times). But one chapter in which Faris outlines a plan to pack the Supreme Court and instate term limits for the justices has gotten perhaps the most attention. Faris credits an organization called Fix The Court for coming up with some of the specifics of the plan he outlines in the book: a constitutional amendment revoking lifetime tenure for the federal judiciary, a law that allows the president to appoint a justice in the first and third year of his term of office and that imposes 18-year term limits on justices, and a restructuring that increases the number of justices on the Supreme Court to 11 or 13, “depending on how many justices President Trump ends up appointing.”

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...ut-the-supreme-court-is-taking-over-the-left/

Should Dems "fight dirty"? Should they pack the courts and get DC and Puerto Rico approved as states (and perhaps more?) the next time they control all 3 branches, so as to expand Democrat representation in the Senate?

Seems like this could be a (necessary?) plan to cement Democrat power, fighting dirty:

1. Expand membership in house (reduces effect and power of gerrymandering)

2. Add as many blue states as possible (cement power in the senate)

3. Pack the courts

4. Maybe also gerrymander as much as they can get away with once in power.

5. Shut down as many polling stations as possible in communities with lots of retirees which tend to vote more heavily for Republicians.

Would such moves trigger secession of red states and possible civil war? Maybe this time let the states that want to leave the union, leave it?
 
Last edited:
Principles are good. However a civil society can only work if everyone plays fair. The Republicans have been cheating and will not stop unless they have something to lose. At this point the Democrats need to think creatively to counter what the Republicans are doing while staying within the law.
There is no law that fixes Supreme Court justices at 9.
 
Principles are good. However a civil society can only work if everyone plays fair.

Playing fair never beings unless somebody starts.

The idea is to have certain principles win out in the end, not certain people.

People do not matter.
 
There is no law that fixes Supreme Court justices at 9.

Well, uh, yes there is. The point would be to change that law.

In any case, I imagine it would work about as well for the Dems as when Harry Reid got rid of the filibuster on judges.
 
Ya, you really don't want to give yourself a power that you're not comfortable with the other side having - because they will end up getting it.

All devolving political activity does is turn more people off of politics and not want to participate in it and that just helps to concentrate power into the hands of the special interests who's ability to turn out votes for specific issues is then less diluted by a larger pool of voters.
 
Why are active ideas that the Republicans have utilized being used as alleged hypothetical plans from Liberals to smear Democrats?

The GOP stopped confirming justices for Obama, including a particularly controversial SCOTUS seat. In 2011, the GOP used massive victories to Gerrymander several states into pointless election states. They even floated the idea of Gerrymandering the Electoral College, by making GOP controlled Blue States (in General Elections) into proportional EV states, but not Red States like Texas. And do we need to get into the whole Voting Rights issue with Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, etc...?

This is one of the worst OPs I've ever read.
 
There is no law that fixes Supreme Court justices at 9.

Well, uh, yes there is. The point would be to change that law.

In any case, I imagine it would work about as well for the Dems as when Harry Reid got rid of the filibuster on judges.

Since Congress set the number of Justices and has changed the number in the past a Democratic Congress can change the number again.

And yes changing the "rules" can work for both parties. But since the Republicans aren't averse to changing the rules the Democrats need to do what it takes to make things fair.

If changing the rules is the new normal so be it.
 
There is no law that fixes Supreme Court justices at 9.

Well, uh, yes there is. The point would be to change that law.

In any case, I imagine it would work about as well for the Dems as when Harry Reid got rid of the filibuster on judges.

Since Congress set the number of Justices and has changed the number in the past a Democratic Congress can change the number again.

And yes changing the "rules" can work for both parties. But since the Republicans aren't averse to changing the rules the Democrats need to do what it takes to make things fair.

If changing the rules is the new normal so be it.

So you're saying the Republicans should pack the court net chance they get. Got it.
 
Why are active ideas that the Republicans have utilized being used as alleged hypothetical plans from Liberals to smear Democrats?

The GOP stopped confirming justices for Obama, including a particularly controversial SCOTUS seat. In 2011, the GOP used massive victories to Gerrymander several states into pointless election states. They even floated the idea of Gerrymandering the Electoral College, by making GOP controlled Blue States (in General Elections) into proportional EV states, but not Red States like Texas. And do we need to get into the whole Voting Rights issue with Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, etc...?

This is one of the worst OPs I've ever read.

You aren't making any sense. How is asking whether the Dems will or should fight dirty a terrible OP? You seem to be of the position that yes, since the Republicians fight dirty, the Dems should as well, which is a fine position to take, except I can't really tell if that is your position for sure through all your Repub bashing and virtue signalling.
 
Ya, you really don't want to give yourself a power that you're not comfortable with the other side having - because they will end up getting it.

All devolving political activity does is turn more people off of politics and not want to participate in it and that just helps to concentrate power into the hands of the special interests who's ability to turn out votes for specific issues is then less diluted by a larger pool of voters.

In theory, both parties already have the power (once they control the legislative and executive) but are restraining themselves from using it to hopefully prevent a tit for tat retaliation (and maybe also lose support from the center of the voting public). Those restraints are breaking down. What is the end game when all restraints are broken? Are the Dems playing a losing game by adhering to restraints while the other party is breaking some of them down? Is it time for the Dems to push harder?
 
I think what the supreme court needs is a supermajority to confirm. Maybe 75 votes in the Senate. That will require a centrist that both sides have to agree to in a compromise. That should prevent partisian hacks from getting appointed.
 
Since Congress set the number of Justices and has changed the number in the past a Democratic Congress can change the number again.

And yes changing the "rules" can work for both parties. But since the Republicans aren't averse to changing the rules the Democrats need to do what it takes to make things fair.

If changing the rules is the new normal so be it.

So you're saying the Republicans should pack the court net chance they get. Got it.

They already are and did.
 
Back
Top Bottom